Another Nail in the Coffin of Objectivity

[Kal Rubinson]

And that's why we have cats.

Or choose not to.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Too tempting... resistance is futile;

Shouldn't he be in a Klein bottle?

 

[Martin Takamine]

An almost identical article, on the same subject, was shared here in a thread not too long ago, with a nearly identical clickbait-y thread title and a nearly identical "click on this" OP with no context and no evidence of any thought expended by the OP.

Appears to be another veiled attempt by a subjectivist defending their opinion by referring to science they don't understand.

 

[VMAT4]

An almost identical article, on the same subject, was shared here in a thread not too long ago, with a nearly identical clickbait-y thread title and a nearly identical "click on this" OP with no context and no evidence of any thought expended by the OP.

It is difficult to do justice to the intellectual laziness behind this kind of impulse, or to the sheer number of logical flaws and leaps behind the notion that any of this applies to the objectivity-subjectivity debate within audio.

What popular interpretations of the "we do not experience any objective reality directly" idea always fail to take into account is the basic scientific principle of repeatability. To pick a random example, the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and is known. The measurement has been taken and confirmed over and over and over and over again 1000s of times, over several centuries, by 100s or 1000s of humans, using a wide variety of instruments in a wide variety of experimental conditions.

In order for the speed of light to be a "subjective" perception of some unknown, inaccessible, and - most important for the "objectivity is not a thing" argument - constantly changing actual reality, then all of those experimenters in all those times and places must have had subjective experiences of the measurement of the speed of light that were bizarrely in sync with each other. When they consulted their measuring instruments and the result came up the same as it always does, perhaps their instruments were all actually displaying something different that different people would have read as a different number - but miraculously, everyone who looked at the results happened to see the same number. And miraculously, the "unreliable," "not really real," "subjective" result every experimenter got happened to be exactly the same as the result gotten by every other experimenter. What an amazing coincidence that the actual movement of light might not be a constant, and the readout of the measurement instrument might not actually have said what the experimenter thought it said, and the measurement instrument might not actually have looked anything like the experimenter's eyes told them it looked like, and on and on and on.

That might all be true: there is nothing truly objective about any of our perceptions - but the difference between what we perceive and the actual reality is a meaningless difference because we all experience it the same way. It doesn't need to be "true" in an absolute sense in order to be real in that it structures our understanding of the world and our physical experience of the world. Photons that come into contact with us at one frequency look like a color; photons that come into contact with us at another frequency don't look like anything but give us sunburn. Some people are less susceptible to sunburn than others, and some people are partially or entirely colorblind - but we all know, understand, and experience the difference between visible light and ultraviolet light. Gamma radiation above a certain amount will kill all of us.

Similarly, in audio, you can play anyone some music over a stereo system and if the amplifier has tone controls you can turn the bass knob all the way down and then all the way up, and they will hear a clear difference. Even if they are deaf they will likely feel a difference between the bass all the way down and all the way up (assuming the speakers have sufficient bass response and the volume is loud enough in the room to produce the requisite vibrations). This is universal, and therefore it is objective in any meaningful sense of the term. Now, it could certainly be that if I could magically be transported into someone else's brain, I might be surprised that their actual perceptual experience of "yeah, the bass went way down and then it went way up" would not sound like it does to me in my brain.

But if we all agree that when you turn the bass knob up and down it changes the bass, and if we all agree that changed bass impacts the lower-frequency tones that you can feel as much as you hear, and we can use a common (or apparently common) language to trigger responses in our brains that we experience as understanding what others are saying, then it doesn't actually matter if our perceptions are identical. If what you hear as bass is something that I actually hear as treble, then that will have repercussions and we will not be able to proceed with life and activities as if we both hear the same thing. If we can proceed as if we both hear the same thing, then any difference in what we "actually" hear is meaningless and for all intents and purposes there is no difference.

To put it most simply, the fact that we are organisms with specific, limited sensory organs does not mean that your favorite high-distortion tube amp is secretely higher-fidelity than a more linear, lower-distortion, lower-noise amplifier. And it does not mean that Audioquest interconnects actually produce better sound even though they measure the same (or worse) as generic ones.

So, this long and serious response to a little "fun" may not prove that audiophiles are anal about more than a "stereo"'s ability to reproduce faithfully an original sound. But, maybe it shows that some of us have trouble with tldr and moving on. Yes, I posted the other article you mentioned. But, what's all this seriousness about a an amusing brainfart waste of a very little bit of time? You can't take it all too seriously. Especially audio or you'll never hear the music. Although, you may hear your "equipment". Tell us, did you ever fall for the idea of "critical listening". What made you think that either article was meant to be anything more than a little fun? Also, please don't admit that the mention of Immanuel Kant doesn't spark a little bit of interest in, wait for it, Immanuel Kant and his philosophy? Speaking of philosphy, these very forums are here thanks to a/our CHIEF FUN OFFICER.

C'mon tmtomh! Lighten Up!

 

[tmtomh]

So, this long and serious response to a little "fun" may not prove that audiophiles are anal about more than a "stereo"'s ability to reproduce faithfully an original sound. But, maybe it shows that some of us have time with tide and moving on. Yes, I posted the other article you mentioned. But, what's all this seriousness about a an amusing brainfart waste of a very little bit of time? You can't take it all too seriously. Especially audio or you'll never hear the music. Although, you may hear your "equipment". Tell us, did you ever fall for the idea of "critical listening". What made you think that either article was meant to be anything more than a little fun? Also, please don't admit that the mention of Emmanuel Kant doesn't spark a little bit of interest in, wait for it, Emmanuel Kant and his philosophy? Speaking of philosphy, these very forums are here thanks to a/our CHIEF FUN OFFICER.

C'mon tmtomh! Lighten Up!

At least you could say something about why you keep creating threads linking to these articles - you must have some thoughts on the matter, yes? I mean, you wouldn't have nothing at all to offer in the conversation and simply share the link to try to get a response out of folks, so you could then tell them to chill out and claim you weren't trying to get a response. Right?

 

[VMAT4]

At least you could says something about why you keep creating threads linking to these articles - you must have some thoughts on the matter, yes? I mean, you wouldn't have nothing at all to offer in the conversation and simply share the link to try to get a response out of folks, so you could then tell them to chill out and claim you weren't trying to get a response. Right?

Nope! I'm just stirring the soup.

 

[kchap]

How can subjectivists use an objective test to prove their argument? If their argument is correct there is no such thing as an objective test.

Edit

 

[tmtomh]

Nope! I'm just stirring the soup.

No thoughts. Got it.

 

[Tks]

This is the objective necessity, not the other way around. Objectivity relies on multiple perspectives.

Agreed with your assessment of the article, but the fundamental philosophical problems of our time were established in the late 16th century, and we have not moved past them. Every scientific development since then has been a consequence of that philosophical work. We have complicated it, though, and amassed much more general and clarifying knowledge since then.

If you mean what I think you meant by the 16th century philosophy that serves as the baseline for the consequence of the science that came after this Enlightenment period, was simply you trying to say something along the lines of: "Baseless illogical thinking was philosophically accepted as nonsensical, and something pervading all society. And since most of that sort of thinking was rooted in anti-Enlightenment proponents of religious affiliation. Finally, because we still have such high rates of people employing this way of thought, since we still have religion so commonplace in much of society, we still have to contend with such reality".

On the off chance you actually mean something different like: "Since the 16th Century, we've had philosophical thinking that tried to replace the role of God and the faith based rational of people - and is something we have to contend with in the modern day in the form of Scientism... This is because the folks who are most versed with pushing philosophy forward were classically people of theist origins (theologians), thus we have the modern day mess of science that thinks it can override philosophy, which it can't and philosophers have shown why this is the case, even with their modern decendents who aren't even theists, nonetheless demonstrate why science has to thank philosphy for pointing it in the 'right direction' that allowed it to make all the progress it has."

If it's the first, I pretty much agree, if it the latter:

I'd agree, but with some reserve. In order to understand something more mysterious, we need to devise complex rigging in order to tear it apart for observation and movement around the issue (basically as the article hints at, we require more perspectives as the more elusive an answer is). So, the complexity isn't just because we're stupid with nothing better to do, it's basically forced because solving something grand with simplicity from the offset is basically a pipe dream with any sort of understanding. The simplification occurs after the complexity is mostly understood, and then boiled back down for easy regurgitation for the rest of the population (in the same way all the engineering and math headaches involved in bringing desktop PC's to our homes and now our palms, started out as disgustingly complex talking points to even be able to discuss the notion).

Another thing is though, I don't think much of any scientific development has been much of any philosophical work, simply because science isnt' concerned with philosophical work for the most part. In the same way you being unable to quell your natural instincts like 'curiosity' or 'hunger' have nothing to do with some philosophical understanding. In fact much of scientific discovery has been forced upon us even before the existence of our species (the simple sensory systems our per-cursor species have evolved to have, and their employment, is in fact the Scientific Method being applied unwittingly and by force, without any intent on our part, or any machination directly). Much of our philosophy has to do with harmonizing/explaining the realizations we've gotten as a result of science (science here also meaning the aforementioned simple use of something like our eyes and realizing what wind is even if we only see grass moving in the distance). We don't start our lives wondering 'why' something is, simply because we have no concept of something 'being' at all in the first place. It's only after experiential events, do we then have enough baseline material to even begin to contemplate the implications of asking questions like: 'why' of something that 'is' (which is what philosophy is somewhat more concerned with). But none of us are born with the apriori philosophical mode of thinking. We first do the science (using our senses to know about our world), and then comes the philosophy to try and see 'if & how' any of our senses make 'some sense' for a lack of a better term.

EDIT: More typo corrections.

 

[escksu]

If more people could deal with the fact that things look different from different points of view, there would be a lot less strife in the world.

Unfortunately most people don't think of it that way. Thats why there is so much war in this world. Even in this forum too.

 

[escksu]

How can subjectivists use an objective test to prove their argument? If there argument is correct there is no such thing as an objective test.

Tests are designed by man, units of measurement are created by man, test equipment are made by man. We do things we can understand and comprehend. To date, there are still many things we don't understand and cant comprehend. The laws and explanations we created don't apply to them.

So what does this means? There is no point to compare or argue about subjectivists or objectivists. How about spend your time and energy into what you like/believe rather than bother about what others like/believe?

 

[Tks]

To put it most simply, the fact that we are organisms with specific, limited sensory organs does not mean that your favorite high-distortion tube amp is secretely higher-fidelity than a more linear, lower-distortion, lower-noise amplifier. And it does not mean that Audioquest interconnects actually produce better sound even though they measure the same (or worse) as generic ones.

The more hilarious thing is, once you realize what the implication of accepting some of the sort of claims this article alludes to, and what audiophiles may cling on to -- this in fact becomes an argument against their position. Because if observations we have are somewhat reliable, imagine how much less reliable the actual explicit subjective observations become by each individual making the observation.

ESPECIALLY once you accept they fact that a company like Audioquest for instance has been caught bullshitting. It then becomes even more reason to NOT accept their version of the reality they're trying to spin.

 

[escksu]

So, this long and serious response to a little "fun" may not prove that audiophiles are anal about more than a "stereo"'s ability to reproduce faithfully an original sound. But, maybe it shows that some of us have trouble with tldr and moving on. Yes, I posted the other article you mentioned. But, what's all this seriousness about a an amusing brainfart waste of a very little bit of time? You can't take it all too seriously. Especially audio or you'll never hear the music. Although, you may hear your "equipment". Tell us, did you ever fall for the idea of "critical listening". What made you think that either article was meant to be anything more than a little fun? Also, please don't admit that the mention of Immanuel Kant doesn't spark a little bit of interest in, wait for it, Immanuel Kant and his philosophy? Speaking of philosphy, these very forums are here thanks to a/our CHIEF FUN OFFICER.

C'mon tmtomh! Lighten Up!

I guess you are too bored at home....lol.

 

[escksu]

The more hilarious thing is, once you realize what the implication of accepting some of the sort of claims this article alludes to, and what audiophiles may cling on to -- this in fact becomes an argument against their position. Because if observations we have are somewhat reliable, imagine how much worse reliable actually explicit subjective observations are by individuals.

ESPECIALLY once you accept they fact that a company like Audioquest for instance has been caught bullshitting. It then becomes even more reason to accept their version of the reality they're trying to spin.

I think the more hilarious thing is many people seems to be so concerned about what audiophiles or subjectivists do or believe in. I frequent numerous other audio FB groups/forums etc... people don't even mention anything about objectivists or what pple here does. So, I don't understand why you folks are so concerned about what they are doing.

 

[Deleted member 21219]

I think the more hilarious thing is many people seems to be so concerned about what audiophiles or subjectivists do or believe in. I frequent numerous other audio FB groups/forums etc... people don't even mention anything about objectivists or what pple here does. So, I don't understand why you folks are so concerned about what they are doing.

If not for light, the darkness would envelope all. Jim

 

[Oldasdrt]

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
-- Philip K. Dick

 

[John Atkinson]

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”
-- Philip K. Dick

As the ghost of Professor Dumbledore says in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, "Of course it's all happening in your head, Harry Potter, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[Oldasdrt]

Great post here, hilarious,
We’re way over thinking this,

We need to discuss alternate universes,
Btw, is Schrodinger’s cat still alive?

 

[Oldasdrt]

As the ghost of Professor Dumbledore says in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, "Of course it's all happening in your head, Harry Potter, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?"

John Atkinson
Technical Editor, Stereophile

 

[VMAT4]

I guess you are too bored at home....lol.

Yes